9352

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9352
• Author: White, C. B.
• Title: Private Interests in Instream Flows.
• USFW Year: 1990.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

I. COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND
A. Early Cases on "diversion" requirement".
1. Thomas v. Guiraud, 6 Colo. 530, 533 (1883) (natural
overflow):
The true test of appropriation of water is the
successful application thereof to the
beneficial use designed, and the method of
distributing or carrying the same or making
such application, is immaterial.
2. Larimer County Res. Co. v. People gx rel. Luthe, 8
Colo. 614, 616, 9 P. 794, 795 (1885) (natural reservoir
in bed of stream):
The word "divert" must be interpreted in
connection with the word "appropriation".
3. Empire Water & Power Co. v. Cascade Town Co., 205
F. 123 (8th Cir. 1913) (natural waterfall):
Undoubtedly a landowner may rely upon an
efficient application by nature, and need do
no more than affirmatively avail himself of
it.
4. Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 P.2d 370, 378
(1960) (Natural potholes):
It is not necessary in every case for an
appropriator of water to construct ditches or
artificial ways through which the water might
be taken from the stream in order that a valid
appropriation be made. The only indispensable
requirements are that the appropriator intends
to use the waters for a beneficial purpose and
actually applies them to that use.
= see:
1. Windsor Reservoir and Canal Co. v. Lake Supply Ditch
Co._, 44 Colo. 214, 98 P. 729 (1908).
2. City and County of Denver v. Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, 130 Colo. 375, 276 P.2d 992, 998 (1954).
3. Lamont v. Riverside Irrigation District, 179 Colo.
134, 498 P.2d 1150 (1972).